General comments

Far be it for me to argue with native speakers, but under German language examples, point 1 could happen, but isn't all that common (most German nouns have just one gender).

I don't get point 2 at all. Where did that hyphen come from? If it is 2 separate words, I don't think a German would reinterpret it as a compound, and if you aren't German, it would never occur to you in a million years that such things exist. The only way it could "imply" a compound in my mind, is if you assume the space and the other capital letter are both typos.

As to solutions, they are correct in that the machines should take care of sorting, not the rules. BUT -- we would need a lot of changes in both MARC and our current systems to make this work. Might be non-trivial. Do we need filing indicators in every field now? Who knows.

My other quibble is with the proposed alternative rules, where you get to omit articles, but only sometimes. The exception is for inflected languages. So the alternative is less consistent (but maybe they mean for it to be less attractive anyway).

However, under 9.2.2.26, the alternative does not include the exception for inflected languages. Why not? As soon as you include an example like "Der alte Autor des Buches..." then you need the exception. At least the exception should be consistenly present in all alternatives.

Also, once you have the exception for inflected languages, it seems like Appendix C needs to be modified to let catalogers know which languages are inflected. It doesn't look to me from what I have in front of me that the Appendix includes that info.

- Robare for D. Brooking, 8/1/11

I am heartily sympathetic to and in favor of this proposal from our German colleagues. Even in non-inflected languages like English, the presence, absence, or choice of article creates subtle differences in meaning. I think however that they have it wrong when they argue that "instructions to omit initial articles are mainly relevant for card catalogs but not for contemporary (integrated) library systems." In a card catalog, filing rules as applied by humans can address the need to ignore articles in any number of heading configurations. In an ILS this becomes a matter of programming, which is much more complicated. Yes, there are MARC 21 fields in which there is a non-filing indicator but there are equally important fields, such as the 246 and 600/700/800 $a$t combinations where there is not a mechanism to address how to ignore the article in filing. This shortcoming of the (current) communications format should not be the overriding factor but needs to be considered. It would be especially welcome if there were corresponding MARBI proposals in the offing to address how to code reliably for the presence of an initial article. -- Myers, MARBI Liaison, 2011/08/02

It doesn't look like proposal 98-16 R ever got beyond the approval stage into actually being part of the format. The document indicates there was still more work to be done. Seeing that the last status date is 4/15/99, it makes me wonder if the proposal has been left to die before being finalized! I certainly hope that isn't so. I do support the German proposal on initial articles, and hope that dealing with initial articles can become entirely a tagging & display software matter. K. Randall, 8/9/11

I also am sympathetic, particularly to point 3, that the omission of initial articles leads to grammatically incorrect forms. It has always bothered me that we are instructed to leave off all initial articles, even those not in the nominative case. It seems very odd to me to leave off articles in genitive, dative, etc. case, which in English are equivalent to a preposition plus an article, which we'd never drop. However, this could be remedied less disruptively by adding to the various RDA instructions something like "In languages with case, only omit initial articles in the nominative case."

I am quite put off by the statement "In an online environment omitting an initial article is no longer necessary and unimportant." This is completely untrue in an alphabetic index, whether online, in a card catalog, in a book, whatever. It will not do simply to marginalize those of us who continue to find alphabetic indexes useful by categorizing them as unnecessary and unimportant.

--Bob Maxwell, 2 August 2011

I’d like to comment on the RDA change proposal regarding initial articles, as proposed by the German libraries. First I’d like to say that their emphasis on online searching (i.e., keyword searching) as the predominant current form of catalog access is overstated. As a cataloger, I rarely rely on keyword searching in either my local database or in OCLC, if I want to see a specific and orderly (alphabetical or numeric) list of results. Keyword searching does not produce orderly results and is not as reliable for cataloging purposes. So the ability to retrieve headings in a strict alphabetical order is still important, if only for us practitioners. The proposal to permit the use of initial articles in headings could result in significant dislocations in an alphabetic display.

Second, one of the goals of RDA is compatibility with AACR2 headings, and since AACR2 prescribed the omission of initial articles in authority headings, the proposal to begin using them would be out of sync with AACR2. This could be accommodated by repurposing the second indicator in the MARC fields 100, 110, 130, etc., to function as a “filing” indicator, so that the initial article would not be indexed and RDA and AACR2 headings could be retrieved in an orderly alphabetic display. I realize that MARC may not be long for this world, but any future bibliographic format that is widely adopted should also have some such function included.

Third, the proposal to require inclusion of the article as the primary rule, but allow an alternative option to omit the article, is not really practicable. In the descriptive rules, inclusion of the article should be a requirement, if the article appears on the resource being cataloged (the “take what you see” principle of RDA). But for authority records, the rule should be prescriptive, not optional. The function of an authority record is to specify the form of heading that should be used in bibliographic records. If the rules governing the formulation of headings allow for too many mutually exclusive variations, they might as well not exist.

Last, a minor point: the examples using Military chaplin should be Military chaplain.

Ideally, initial articles would always be transcribed, and would always be ignored whenever an alphabetical list is to be produced. That's a systems issue, and I hope we get there soon, but I'm not sure adopting this elaborate proposal with all its alternatives and exceptions is a necessary intermediate step. R.Rendall, 8/17/11

I have worked as a cataloger for many years with German-language materials; I was also a member of the team that translated AACR2 into German. I support in principle the attempt being made here by the German National Library to change the treatment of initial articles in access points. As the National Library's proposal makes clear, this is an Anglo-centric library practice that leads to many unfortunate results when the language of the item is a grammatically inflected one, as German is. Omitting initial articles, as RDA currently requires, leads to a plethora of ugly results in German; the result often looks illiterate to the user's eye, and in some cases, the meaning of words in a name or title can be obscured. The Scandinavian languages suffer from this problem as well. You are a music cataloger, so I'm sure you are familiar with the example of Gustav Mahler's Des Knaben Wunderhorn, unfortunately established as Mahler, Gustav, 1860-1911. Knaben Wunderhorn, where omission of the genitive article "des" obscures the fact that "Knaben" is a possessive, i.e., The youth's magic horn.

Technologically speaking, it is no longer necessary to omit initial articles from headings. All that is needed is increased awareness of the non-sorting character, and widespread adoption of this character by library system vendors. MARC21 adopted the non-sorting character back in 2004 (cf. http://www.loc.gov/marc/nonsorting.html)

German library systems have successfully used non-sorting characters since the inception of their online catalogs some 40 years ago. I think it is a shame that RDA remains tied to past practice here, instead of grasping an opportunity to embrace current technology. However, in practical terms, I recognize that it may be difficult to overcome the legacy of millions of records in which initial articles were omitted.

I believe that the German National Library is right to ask that the rules be changed so that the preferred practice is to include initial articles in transcription of names and titles and in access points. But the adoption of this change in the rules would have to be tied to the adoption of library systems that support the non-sorting character. As we know, OCLC has not yet agreed to support the non-sorting character, and the other major systems vendors have of course followed suit. JSC should make it a goal to promote the non-sorting character and to eventually implement policies as outlined in the National Library's proposal. In the interim, it is probably not realistic to adopt the German proposal in its entirety.

At the least, however, users of RDA should have the option to record initial articles if their library systems support the non-sorting character, and this option should be stated explicitly in the rules. This could be accomplished at present by retaining the rules in question as currently written, and adopting the proposed German revisions as an option.

One small note: in the text you shared, the Germans several times use the phrase "a title [etc.] which is originated from an inflected language." This could probably be better expressed as "a title written in an inflected language" or something similar.

LC RESPONSE

While the revision to the alternative is something that CC:DA also wanted, I believe that the generalization of the instruction itself, both in the German proposal and in the LC revision, goes too far. The instructions on transcription (both the general ones in chapter 1 and specific ones on transcribing titles) are full of instructions on modifying the title as it appears on the source of information. LC is correct that the preferred title of the work is recorded, rather than transcribed, but I believe that this instruction (which deals specifically with initial articles) needs to be a simple negative instruction "Do not omit an initial article."

-- J. Attig, 9/13/2011

Agree with John A. above about the first paragraph. Disagree with LC's rationale for not including "or which is originated from an inflected language" because all the situations are represented in the first paragraph. The DNB proposal could probably be better worded "e.g. a title that begins with the name of a person or place, or which is in an inflected language". Their point is that an initial article should never be omitted in an inflected language because a title like "langen Tages Reise in die Nacht" or a name like "Alte Mystische Orden vom Rosenkreuz" is nonsensical und ungrammatical. Of course, the JSC could choose to ignore that and make an alternative rule that reflects our current practice. --J. Hostage 14:34, 13 September 2011 (CDT)

I really like the clarity of "Do not omit an initial article." It's the sort of plain, direct language that critics of RDA are clamoring for.

-- Randy Roeder 9/14/11

LC is correct that transcribing initial articles in inflected languages is covered by the instruction in the first paragraph, i.e. if you want to record them you can say you're following the basic instruction and not the alternative. But that's missing of the point of why this proposal includes this phrase about them in the alternative. The intent of the proposal is to ensure that initial articles in inflected languages, unlike English or French ones, will never be omitted in RDA records, even by those who are implementing the alternative. That would be a change from our current practice and would result in German titles indexing alphabetically under the German equivalents of The and A. I do agree with LC that this phrase should be removed from the alternative wherever it appears, and the Kleine Nachtmusik example retained. For as long as we need to do it, it makes no sense to omit initial articles for some languages but forbid that practice for other languages, no matter how unnatural and objectionable artificial headings like "Goldene Topf" may be. R.Rendall, 9/14/11

I also John's suggested wording above; I suppose if we don't want to use a negative statement for a rule, we cold suggest something like Include an initial articls. I agree with LC that the alternative should not include an exception for inflected languages, and the example Kleine Nachtmusik be retained. Winzer, 9/15/11

9.2.2.25 Characterizing word or phrase

I wonder why LC changed "Omit an initial article" to "Omit the initial article" in the alternative. Was that intentional? --J. Hostage 14:34, 13 September 2011 (CDT)

9.2.2.26 Phrase naming another work by the person

Totally agree that the comma should be inserted, here and everywhere else this construction appears. Winzer, 9/15/2011

11.2.2.8 Initial articles. Alternative

Here again I agree with LC that the phrase "or which is originated from an inflected language" and the proposed example should be removed, but for the reasons given under 6.2.1.7 above. R.Rendall, 9/14/11

Also agree. Winzer, 9/15/11

Appendix C

FWIW, after re-reviewing the proposal in light of LC's response, I found the revision to the first sentence of C.1 to be incomprehensible. As revised, it makes it sound like there are lists of articles under the alternatives to 6.2.1.7, etc. This is not the case, as the lists of articles are in Appendix C. I think the revised text is trying to point out that there are circumstances under the alternatives where an article would be omitted and those where it wouldn't, and that the alternatives identify (list) those circumstances. This is different from listing the articles. While I appreciate the attempt to draw attention to those circumstances in the instruction for C.1, perhaps the easiest language would be "Do not omit initial articles unless applying the alternative instructions under 6.2.1.7 (titles of works) ..." --Myers?